Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Most significant advance in bike technology for speed?
Date: 4 Feb 2025 23:18:40 GMT
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <m0fligF52j8U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <vn0pv2$2cdge$1@dont-email.me>
 <lvinbeFe2t8U1@mid.individual.net>
 <ZGuoP.527888$V9s2.111349@fx34.iad>
 <vntti2$1vtl2$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net bUD9q8YEAv3TdPDyEeiuUQHAMOfJv9tr/i+3/E+O5dGT7o9GwA
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sgE5saRecifOuwatDjGcZhvSH7A= sha1:vLXpVde3D4CWyhT8+VGm0sTVNAE= sha256:bJXUb+9tgx6r2oag3ffWi0fA+SOg3y/+ZzJI/ApEv/Q=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Bytes: 5862

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 2/4/2025 2:23 PM, cyclintom wrote:
>> On Fri Jan 24 23:51:10 2025 Roger Merriman  wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> In another forum, someone postulated that integrated brake & shift
>>>> levers (like STI) were the most significant bit of racing technology
>>>> ever designed for increasing speed. But that claim met with little
>>>> respect. One skeptic noted that there was no great increase in average
>>>> race speeds in Paris-Roubaix, Milan-San Remo, Tour of Flanders,
>>>> Leige-Bastogne-Leige or Giro de Lobardia since about 1960, including
>>>> during the era of STI adoption. By contrast, in the  years 1930 - 1960
>>>> average speeds increased around 30%. (Note: That does not mean that STI
>>>> is not tactically beneficial. That's a separate issue.)
>>>> 
>>> On a broader point bit like disks eventually coming to road, MTB had if not
>>> integrated brakes and shift levers that one didn?t need to move one?s hands
>>> or even shift finger positions, with thumb shifters.
>>> 
>>> Ie it was being done on a related design so was inevitable just matter of
>>> when.
>>> 
>>>> But if not STI, what were the most significant tech developments
>>>> regarding bicycle race speeds?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Here?s my list:
>>>> 
>>>> Pedals & cranks, as opposed to scooting a ?hobby horse? via feet on the
>>>> ground.
>>>> 
>>> Probably that one actually I believe that Penny farthings could shift,
>>> where raced around Herne Hill which is old ish Velodrome in East London.
>>> And they certainly could shift probably the biggest jump.
>>> 
>>> Don?t get me wrong been lots of improvements, some have been speed by
>>> default even in the 90?s MTB didn?t really last long in races be that
>>> frame/components etc. be that getting a double puncture, loosing the chain
>>> or something bending/snapping!
>>> 
>>> That?s certainly come a long way racers now expect their bikes to last the
>>> race and even over multiple runs!
>>> 
>>>> Tubular metal frames and wire tension (spoke) wheels.
>>>> 
>>>> Large driven wheels, to give a much higher effective ?gear.? (The
>>>> Ordinary or Penny Farthing)
>>>> 
>>> I believe that bikes went to cranks as they didn?t have anything drive
>>> chain as such yet.
>>> 
>>>> The ?Safety Bicycle? with a diamond frame and chain drive, getting the
>>>> rider down lower, to greatly reduce aero drag as well as pitchover on
>>>> braking.
>>>> 
>>>> Pneumatic tires. Hard tired ?safeties? had terrible rolling resistance.
>>>> 
>>>> The handlebar stem, invented by the heroic Major Taylor, to allow a much
>>>> more aero riding position.
>>>> 
>>>> Rim brakes, by whatever mechanism, as opposed to spoon brakes acting on
>>>> a tire.
>>>> 
>>>> Multiple gears, by whatever mechanism.
>>>> 
>>>> The derailleur, making multiple gears easy to shift, customizable and
>>>> light weight.
>>>> 
>>>> Recumbent geometry in some situations. Recumbents seem to be slower
>>>> uphill, but tend to be faster on level or downhills
>>>> 
>>>> Fully enclosed streamlined aero shells tremendously increased speed, but
>>>> at a great reduction in versatility and practicality.
>>>> 
>>>> Beyond those, ISTM that most developments have been chasing ever
>>>> diminishing returns.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> have been puttoing in big miles for 50 years. While Brifters were
>> certainly and improvement it had absolutely no comparison to 28 mm
>> tires. Many of the early carbon fiber bikes were unrideable with high
>> pressure 23 mm tires.
> 
> Really? Hadn't noticed.
> 
> I was out on my 1988 Kestrel fixie with 22mm tubulars this 
> morning. Aside from the cold, everything else was fine.
> 

I certainly noticed with the roadie commuter how nervous a ride it was with
the stock 25mm tyres vs the 32mm tyres this said the roads to work aren’t
particularly good in fact as it passes some industrial areas quite poor.

Can do the calculations or look up how the volume of the tyres increases,
which explains how my old commute bike with 26/2in tyres kinda magic carpet
though potholes and the like, even with 32mm tyres I’m bit still wary of
potholes which I’m not on the old MTB.

This said if one is going for a leisure ride, while I’m a fan generally of
the move to wider tyres and as long as the bike has clearance seems a easy
win, but Tom is being hyperbolic even the track bike I had years ago was
fine with 25mm I even crossed a section of dirt on it to no hard to myself
or bike!

I’d put integrated and indexed shifters much further up the usability,
wider tyres are nice, and make road bikes less focused ie can roll down
that dirt road much easier and less chance of pinch flatting but it’s not
as big a jump in usability.

As ever with bikes is no absolute need for most part, bikes even a hundred
or more are still well a bike even a road bike.

Roger Merriman